LC

They tend to gravitate towards stable organizations because they understand the fragility of life and circumstance.

I put my portfolio in my signature to make it blatantly obvious that despite my ramblings in Amazon, Valeant, etc. threads, I don't have a dog in those fights.

I've been at this for 4 years. On an overall basis I've outperformed over those four years. Do I think I'm a "winner"? Heck no. I'm convinced I will probably under-perform over my lifetime. I am OK with that. Let me repeat that: I am OK with underperforming. It is still possible to get rich despite underperforming. I don't have a huge capital base where a 2% difference translates to millions of dollars. I concentrate on being good at my job and increasing my salary and title. If my stock picks (in my signature) underperform a bit, I am OK with that. I think they have more sustainable earnings than the S&P as a whole, but I am going into the "deal" assuming I could very well be wrong. I am OK with that. In fact, I think most of my "errors" have been due to reaching too hard trying desperately to outperform. Now I just try to find stable cash flows at a reasonable price (i.e. market multiple) and "get rich slowly".

I'm not "good" at all, look at my portfolio I am pretty much stupid and lazy. I probably bring down the average here, I am not a professional or brilliant amateur. I am just glad you all tolerate me. Accrual and cash....timing differences when accounting statements recognize revenues and associated expenses. cash based means when cash comes in u get revenue, cash goes out u have expense. accrual is based on when the revenue/expense is 'earned'. i.e. if i have a contract which pays me 10k up front but i earn the revenue over 5 years, i have to defer it and recognize it as a i earn it.

I don't care about the semantics so I'll use your terms. -Where will the resources which provide for these systems of justice and protection come from, if not from taxes (or theft as you put it)? -Do you disagree with universal healthcare as a concept, or is your disagreement with how it's funded? Or both?

http://www.quickmeme.com/img/18/18f980390694235cc2b07901b7b32729772c80ea59afd1ece7a8b1fcc535b9b4.jpg

So in your view: Humans have always had a "concept" of government or "the state" (although there really is no such thing as these things) This concept of "government" has waxed/waned in strength over the course of human civilization (presumably depending on humanity's "need" for it) But this "concept" is totally useless and will eventually be seen to be unnecessary. I don't quite see how A&B lead to C. Here's another interpretation Perhaps this concept of government is a part of the human condition and part of the nature of human society, and will always exist in one form or another. Perhaps it is both useful in some cases (like making sure our food doesn't have lead chips in it and our old sick citizens can afford rent), and useless in other cases (like wasting resources on corrupt defense contractors or bailing out corrupt politician's bankers). It's like an old grandmother. She makes sure all the kids are fed, bandaged up when they fall, and generally don't break themselves. But she still gives everyone $100 on some holidays depsite the fact that her one grandkid is kind of a dick and probably doesn't deserve it. Perhaps instead of blowing up something to which all evidence points to as being entwined with human society and will never disappear, a more mature solution would be to try and limit the useless aspects and enhance the useful aspects. Don't blow up grandma.

Social security and medicare have directly helped millions of the most vulnerable citizens stay clothed, fed, under a roof, and in good health. There are plenty of countries in the world severely lacking government intervention. They also lack things like running water and indoor plumbing but I guess that's a completely different matter.

Pretty intellectually easy argument to make. So the US has been "all downhill" since the 1900s? I'm not sure follow that. The 20th century was essentially defined by the US. In terms of "socialism" I think we are talking past each other. I'm arguing for progressive taxation to fund general social programs (social security and universal healthcare as the two largest and probably most important). You're arguing against economic bailouts and macroeconomic intervention. The two are fundamentally different. I also don't buy the argument that equality stifles incentive. Plenty of brilliant Russian scientists were born, educated, and accomplished brilliant things in Communist Russia.

O god I love that. Really wish more companies would do that. They probably realize expense management is more "in their control" than revenue, so they try to cloud those lines as much as possible.

Perhaps in a truly anarchist society like the one you propose, slavery would arise as the naturally strong prey on the weak. Perhaps only through the collective agreement of humans (aka politics) would the unsavory aspects of human nature be limited. And the removal of a state is going to solve this? "rights" don't exist in an anarchistic state. it only takes 1 person to think it's OK for them to do it. My question was relatively loaded because before "states" and "governments" existed, a "stateless" society existed. We lived in caves and hunted and gathered. But even in those days social structure existed. Maybe it wasn't an "official state" but there was a political process and agreed upon rules. And forms of "taxation". No, the IRS didn't come after you but you sure as hell better save some of your seeds with the village otherwise you will be ostracized.

I personally really hope Sanders wins, I think he's the best candidate the US has had since I've been alive. What makes you think Sanders is moronic? He's a socialist. It's extremely evident any socialistic system is sub-optimal by definition but people keep trying it because it matches their definition of fair (where fair is condired equality). Striving for equality is stupid. The more equal they make the lower incentive for skilled individuals to do anything of value. Motivation to do good is not intrinsic. This is such a black and white picture you are painting...First, the US is not a purely capitalist country. Look at the major government programs to see that. Second, unfettered capitalism has been shown to be both productive and destructive. Sometimes, very destructive. Reasonable regulation seems like the best option. Sanders has 8 main proposals (https://berniesanders.com/issues/how-bernie-pays-for-his-proposals/) Most of them seem reasonable to me. Frankly, the bigger issue is how much money is being siphoned away through tax-avoidance. I mean, some of them are even "anti-socialist". For example cutting government handouts to O&G companies: (http://www.foe.org/news/archives/2015-04-sanders-ellison-introduce-bill-to-end-135-b-in-fossil-fuel-handouts). I'm not exactly sure where you see the downfall of the American entrepreneurial spirit fitting into the above. What I see is stopping a lot of rich, powerful groups from avoiding reasonable taxes which are causing a lot of the income inequality and social strife in this country.

What makes you think Sanders is moronic?

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument. Illogical if you want the system "to work" whatever that means to you, but not illogical at all if you're goal is the crumbling of the system. The more hatred and disgust politics engenders the less people will look to it to solve problems. The best outcome possible is for people to think of politics as a nasty process that is irrelevant to their lives and to dismiss it completely. Just curious if you can point to any human society that functioned well with this type of structure.

I agree: he was correct on the fundamentals and probably lucky on the timing. Im sure others were correct on the fundamentals but unlucky on the timing.

No way, Hillary is such a typical politician: tell everyone what they want to hear (integrity be damned) and line your pockets/accumulate power in the process. Give me a break. IMHO Bernie is the best candidate, but I am open to dis-confirming evidence!

Not sure if you're serious...but if so, that is such an illogical argument.

Unless they disagree with your preconceived notions!!!

With 100B he could buy Nike, Starbucks, or 3M. I mean, wow.

Thanks for the analysis, still digesting your conclusions.

I mean, that's insurance in general. This is why insurance is so tightly-regulated.

What I highlighted above in your quote is an ethical issue, not an issue with the rules governing GAAP or IFRS (the two major accounting standards). Nobody is going to teach you in a classroom that you shouldn't accept a bribe in exchange for moving liabilities off the balance sheet.

Accounting classes are mostly cookie-cutter. The stuff doesn't change very often and most aspect have stringent rules to follow. You can probably teach it yourself if you have the inclination. He's talking about ethics, not accounting. Yea I think you're being overly dramatic here. Bullshit accounting? What? Accounting rules don't change whether you learn it from Tyco University or straight from Munger's mouth. Double-entry bookkeeping is about as good as it gets. GAAP accounting is pretty damn good. The problem is, people will simply lie to steal people's money. That's called ethics and is much more difficult to teach.

sell shovels to them: commercial lease brokerage bankruptcy/tax services etc.

SCion Asset Management SCAM. J/k Burry :)